Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Three-dimensional ultrasound is a reliable alternative in endovascular aortic repair surveillance

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Ghulam, Qasam ; Bredahl, Kim ; Eiberg, Jonas ; Bal, Laurence ; van Sambeek, Marc R ; Kirksey, Lee ; Kilaru, Sashi ; Taudorf, Mikkel ; Rouet, Laurence ; Collet-Billon, Antoine ; Kawashima, Toana ; Entrekin, Robert ; Sillesen, Henrik. / Three-dimensional ultrasound is a reliable alternative in endovascular aortic repair surveillance. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2021 ; Vol. 74, No. 3. pp. 979-987.

Bibtex

@article{5861c379a465442d902c6eb4daba3fd6,
title = "Three-dimensional ultrasound is a reliable alternative in endovascular aortic repair surveillance",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) has already demonstrated improved reproducibility with a high degree of agreement (intermodality variability), reproducibility (interoperator variability), and repeatability (intraoperator variability) compared with conventional two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) when estimating the maximum diameter of native abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The aim of the present study was, in a clinical, multicenter setting, to evaluate the accuracy of 3D-US with aneurysm model quantification software (3D-US abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA] model) for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) sac diameter assessment vs that of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and 2D-US.METHODS: A total of 182 patients who had undergone EVAR from April 2016 to December 2017 and were compliant with a standardized EVAR surveillance program were enrolled from five different vascular centers (Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, Netherlands; L'hospital de la Timone, Paris, France; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; and The Christ Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio) in four countries. All image acquisitions were performed at the local sites (ie, 2D-US, 3D-US, CTA). Only the 2D-US and CTA readings were performed both locally and centrally. All images were read centrally by the US and CTA core laboratory. Anonymized image data were read in a randomized and blinded manner.RESULTS: The sample used to estimate the accuracy of the 3D-US AAA model and 2D-US included 164 patients and 177 patients, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference between CTA and 3D-US was -2.43 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.20 to 0.14; P = .07) with a lower and upper limit of agreement of -8.9 mm (95% CI, -9.3 to -8.4) and 2.7 mm (95% CI, 2.3-3.2), respectively. For 2D-US and CTA, the mean difference was -3.62 mm (95% CI, -6.14 to -1.10; P = .002), with a lower and upper limit of agreement of -10.3 mm (95% CI, -10.8 to -9.8) and 2.5 mm (95% CI, 2-2.9), respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-US AAA model showed no significant difference compared with CTA for measuring the anteroposterior diameter, indicating less bias for 3D-US compared with 2D-US. Thus, 3D-US with AAA model software is a viable modality for anteroposterior diameter assessment for surveillance after EVAR.",
keywords = "Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/diagnostic imaging, Aortography, Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects, Computed Tomography Angiography, Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects, Europe, Female, Humans, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Male, Middle Aged, Ohio, Postoperative Complications/diagnostic imaging, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Ultrasonography",
author = "Qasam Ghulam and Kim Bredahl and Jonas Eiberg and Laurence Bal and {van Sambeek}, {Marc R} and Lee Kirksey and Sashi Kilaru and Mikkel Taudorf and Laurence Rouet and Antoine Collet-Billon and Toana Kawashima and Robert Entrekin and Henrik Sillesen",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2021.02.031",
language = "English",
volume = "74",
pages = "979--987",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby, Inc",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Three-dimensional ultrasound is a reliable alternative in endovascular aortic repair surveillance

AU - Ghulam, Qasam

AU - Bredahl, Kim

AU - Eiberg, Jonas

AU - Bal, Laurence

AU - van Sambeek, Marc R

AU - Kirksey, Lee

AU - Kilaru, Sashi

AU - Taudorf, Mikkel

AU - Rouet, Laurence

AU - Collet-Billon, Antoine

AU - Kawashima, Toana

AU - Entrekin, Robert

AU - Sillesen, Henrik

N1 - Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/9

Y1 - 2021/9

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) has already demonstrated improved reproducibility with a high degree of agreement (intermodality variability), reproducibility (interoperator variability), and repeatability (intraoperator variability) compared with conventional two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) when estimating the maximum diameter of native abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The aim of the present study was, in a clinical, multicenter setting, to evaluate the accuracy of 3D-US with aneurysm model quantification software (3D-US abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA] model) for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) sac diameter assessment vs that of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and 2D-US.METHODS: A total of 182 patients who had undergone EVAR from April 2016 to December 2017 and were compliant with a standardized EVAR surveillance program were enrolled from five different vascular centers (Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, Netherlands; L'hospital de la Timone, Paris, France; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; and The Christ Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio) in four countries. All image acquisitions were performed at the local sites (ie, 2D-US, 3D-US, CTA). Only the 2D-US and CTA readings were performed both locally and centrally. All images were read centrally by the US and CTA core laboratory. Anonymized image data were read in a randomized and blinded manner.RESULTS: The sample used to estimate the accuracy of the 3D-US AAA model and 2D-US included 164 patients and 177 patients, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference between CTA and 3D-US was -2.43 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.20 to 0.14; P = .07) with a lower and upper limit of agreement of -8.9 mm (95% CI, -9.3 to -8.4) and 2.7 mm (95% CI, 2.3-3.2), respectively. For 2D-US and CTA, the mean difference was -3.62 mm (95% CI, -6.14 to -1.10; P = .002), with a lower and upper limit of agreement of -10.3 mm (95% CI, -10.8 to -9.8) and 2.5 mm (95% CI, 2-2.9), respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-US AAA model showed no significant difference compared with CTA for measuring the anteroposterior diameter, indicating less bias for 3D-US compared with 2D-US. Thus, 3D-US with AAA model software is a viable modality for anteroposterior diameter assessment for surveillance after EVAR.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) has already demonstrated improved reproducibility with a high degree of agreement (intermodality variability), reproducibility (interoperator variability), and repeatability (intraoperator variability) compared with conventional two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) when estimating the maximum diameter of native abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The aim of the present study was, in a clinical, multicenter setting, to evaluate the accuracy of 3D-US with aneurysm model quantification software (3D-US abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA] model) for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) sac diameter assessment vs that of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and 2D-US.METHODS: A total of 182 patients who had undergone EVAR from April 2016 to December 2017 and were compliant with a standardized EVAR surveillance program were enrolled from five different vascular centers (Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, Netherlands; L'hospital de la Timone, Paris, France; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; and The Christ Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio) in four countries. All image acquisitions were performed at the local sites (ie, 2D-US, 3D-US, CTA). Only the 2D-US and CTA readings were performed both locally and centrally. All images were read centrally by the US and CTA core laboratory. Anonymized image data were read in a randomized and blinded manner.RESULTS: The sample used to estimate the accuracy of the 3D-US AAA model and 2D-US included 164 patients and 177 patients, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference between CTA and 3D-US was -2.43 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.20 to 0.14; P = .07) with a lower and upper limit of agreement of -8.9 mm (95% CI, -9.3 to -8.4) and 2.7 mm (95% CI, 2.3-3.2), respectively. For 2D-US and CTA, the mean difference was -3.62 mm (95% CI, -6.14 to -1.10; P = .002), with a lower and upper limit of agreement of -10.3 mm (95% CI, -10.8 to -9.8) and 2.5 mm (95% CI, 2-2.9), respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-US AAA model showed no significant difference compared with CTA for measuring the anteroposterior diameter, indicating less bias for 3D-US compared with 2D-US. Thus, 3D-US with AAA model software is a viable modality for anteroposterior diameter assessment for surveillance after EVAR.

KW - Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/diagnostic imaging

KW - Aortography

KW - Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects

KW - Computed Tomography Angiography

KW - Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects

KW - Europe

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Imaging, Three-Dimensional

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Ohio

KW - Postoperative Complications/diagnostic imaging

KW - Predictive Value of Tests

KW - Prospective Studies

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Time Factors

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - Ultrasonography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103721523&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.02.031

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.02.031

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 33684470

VL - 74

SP - 979

EP - 987

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 67940166